Posts

-->
Nuclear weapons are primarily defensive in nature and
represent the ultimate insurance against foreign invasion. This must be the
backdrop for the future of Trump-Kim meeting for which the expectations seem to
have been hastily heightened and not the much-exaggerated “historic” meeting
between the leaders of the two Koreas. No less “historic” meetings were already
held twice before––in 2000 and 2007––and the 1992 Joint Declaration for the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula literally stated that “The South and
the North shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy
or use nuclear weapons.” We are at the very beginning, not at the end, of a long road
that may lead to nuclear-free peace with North Korea, but quite realistically
may not. Even worse, with the exaggerated expectations now, the Trump
Administration has actually increased the risk of a large-scale conflict.

Why Trump's Refusal to
Commit Unconditionally to Article 5 is Such a Blow to the Alliance
In international politics, talk is cheap, deception is a
virtue, naiveté and missed opportunities cost dearly. These are among the
lessons I learned years ago from my professor of IR, John Mearsheimer of
University of Chicago. Certainly, Hobbes or Machiavelli would agree with such
statements. But, unlike in the anarchic balance of power world, the
micro-cosmos of collective security systems and is built on unconditional
common commitments and mutual trust. Security alliances’ deterrent power rests,
among other things, on the Musketeerian doctrine of “all for one and one for
all,” as well as on the mutual resolve to apply it. NATO’s Article 5 plays that
precise role and it has been the cornerstone of the alliance’s deterrence power
for near seven decades. That is why Donald Trump’s
speech on May 25th in Brussels to the heads of the member-states of
the alliance, and his failure explicitly and …

It is rather puzzling why the supporters of populist political actors seem not to care at all about obvious and undisputed facts (or their lack thereof) that concern their candidates, while mainstream supporters tend to withdraw their support at the slightest hint of an allegation of misconduct?

Consider the following examples, although others abound: the U.S. president, Donald Trump, publicly accuses his predecessor in wiretapping his Trump Tower. The allegations are consequently officially disproved and rejected by the FBI director James Comey, and by both Republican and Democrat leaders in the House and Senate. Yet, Trump supporters continue to believe it is all a cover-up by “fake” media and “corrupt” establishment. No loss of credibility or love, it seems, for Trump by his supporters. Sticking to his claim might have even helped him consolidate further his base. During the same congressional hearing, the FBI director reveals that the Trump campaign ties with Russia are subject to…